and many more benefits!

Find us on Facebook

GMAT Club Timer Informer

Hi GMATClubber!

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

Taking the GMAT in the morning, need a last-minute critique. [#permalink]

Show Tags

05 Nov 2013, 13:01

1

This post receivedKUDOS

I did this as a final hoo-rah before my test tomorrow. I've not had the money to buy any test prep material, so have done everything basically through GMAT Club and YouTube. Any critiques at all would be sincerely appreciated.

Prompt:"Most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Hence it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer: they could thus reduce their payroll expenses and save money."

Essay:The argument above suggests that most companies are like-minded in believing that as risk of physical, on-the-job injury increases, so should wages paid to employees. The argument goes on to suggest that making the workplace safer would make good financial sense because it would negate the call for increased payroll expense. However, this argument is severely flawed and poorly supported due to a huge lack of substantiating data.First, the argument states that as risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. This point if terribly flawed because it offers no statistics and even neglects to offer a reasonable point for a company believing that increased wages should go hand-in-hand with increased risk of injury. For example, if a company were to face the extra expenses that go along with job-related injuries, such as legal fees, the company’s net profit would decrease. Furthermore, because the purpose of a company is to increase shareowner wealth, to increase payroll expense along with the increased chance of additional charges such as legal fees, would be counter-productive to the objective of the business and totally nullifies the first point of the argument.

Second, the argument states that it would make financial sense to make the workplace safer. This point is likewise flawed in that it assumes that the safety of the workplace is increasable or that a given company has not already taken every precaution to maximize workplace safety. For example, airplanes face a standing risk of crashing due to natural disasters that no employer or company in the world could prevent from happening no matter the safety budget or technology at their disposal. Likewise, in a high-risk situation such as high-rise construction, even if a company takes the greatest measure possible, such working conditions will always be high-risk scenarios and lead to increased probability of workplace injuries. Suffice it to say, with no additional avenue to increase workplace safety, making a workplace safer would be impossible which makes the argument’s second point moot.

Finally, the above argument suggests an increase in safety would reduce risk in the workplace, thereby reducing the payroll expense and saving a given company money. This point is a stretch due to a high level of assumption that the expense to increase safety would be less than the extra payroll expense. This is a serious fault in the argument because, especially in smaller companies with higher –risk workplaces, the expense to make the workplace safer would be higher than the extra payroll expense. For example, if a company were to have two employees that operate very large, very expensive, slightly less-safe equipment, a slight increase in each worker’s wages may be much more financially-intelligent on the company’s part than to replace massively expensive equipment. Due to the very assumptive nature of this point, it is safe to consider it insufficient in providing a strong argument.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned supporting evidence of the argument’s primary points. For example, evidence of how or why companies would agree to increased payroll expense to accompany increased workplace risk, how such a decision would make financial sense and, finally, that the expense to increase workplace safety would be greater than the otherwise extra increase in payroll expense.

Re: Taking the GMAT in the morning, need a last-minute critique. [#permalink]

Show Tags

06 Nov 2013, 06:51

Stoneface wrote:

I did this as a final hoo-rah before my test tomorrow. I've not had the money to buy any test prep material, so have done everything basically through GMAT Club and YouTube. Any critiques at all would be sincerely appreciated.

Prompt:"Most companies would agree that as the risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. Hence it makes financial sense for employers to make the workplace safer: they could thus reduce their payroll expenses and save money."

Essay:The argument above suggests that most companies are like-minded in believing that as risk of physical, on-the-job injury increases, so should wages paid to employees. The argument goes on to suggest that making the workplace safer would make good financial sense because it would negate the call for increased payroll expense. However, this argument is severely flawed and poorly supported due to a huge lack of substantiating data.First, the argument states that as risk of physical injury occurring on the job increases, the wages paid to employees should also increase. This point if terribly flawed because it offers no statistics and even neglects to offer a reasonable point for a company believing that increased wages should go hand-in-hand with increased risk of injury. For example, if a company were to face the extra expenses that go along with job-related injuries, such as legal fees, the company’s net profit would decrease. Furthermore, because the purpose of a company is to increase shareowner wealth, to increase payroll expense along with the increased chance of additional charges such as legal fees, would be counter-productive to the objective of the business and totally nullifies the first point of the argument.

Second, the argument states that it would make financial sense to make the workplace safer. This point is likewise flawed in that it assumes that the safety of the workplace is increasable or that a given company has not already taken every precaution to maximize workplace safety. For example, airplanes face a standing risk of crashing due to natural disasters that no employer or company in the world could prevent from happening no matter the safety budget or technology at their disposal. Likewise, in a high-risk situation such as high-rise construction, even if a company takes the greatest measure possible, such working conditions will always be high-risk scenarios and lead to increased probability of workplace injuries. Suffice it to say, with no additional avenue to increase workplace safety, making a workplace safer would be impossible which makes the argument’s second point moot.

Finally, the above argument suggests an increase in safety would reduce risk in the workplace, thereby reducing the payroll expense and saving a given company money. This point is a stretch due to a high level of assumption that the expense to increase safety would be less than the extra payroll expense. This is a serious fault in the argument because, especially in smaller companies with higher –risk workplaces, the expense to make the workplace safer would be higher than the extra payroll expense. For example, if a company were to have two employees that operate very large, very expensive, slightly less-safe equipment, a slight increase in each worker’s wages may be much more financially-intelligent on the company’s part than to replace massively expensive equipment. Due to the very assumptive nature of this point, it is safe to consider it insufficient in providing a strong argument.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned supporting evidence of the argument’s primary points. For example, evidence of how or why companies would agree to increased payroll expense to accompany increased workplace risk, how such a decision would make financial sense and, finally, that the expense to increase workplace safety would be greater than the otherwise extra increase in payroll expense.